On June 5, in an unanimous decision by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court ruled in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos that Mexico failed plausibly to plead that the American firearm industry aided and abetted unlawful sales routing guns to Mexican drug cartels. The decision not only adds teeth to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), it also recognizes that semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are in wide use by Americans, verifying that they meet Heller's common-use test.
While the Court does not expressly mention that PLCAA reaffirms Second Amendment rights, it does reference the preamble of the law, which explicitly set forth one primary purpose of PLCAA is to protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans. The Court then explained how the law protects the firearm industry from civil lawsuits blaming the industry for crimes and torts committed by third parties. It provides that "a qualified civil liability action" – defined as a civil suit against a manufacturer or seller of a firearm or firearm part (called a "qualified product") – may not be brought in any federal or state court.
Excluded from PLCAA is the "predicate exception," defined as "an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought…." That includes acts in which a dealer or manufacturer knowingly makes false entries in records or conspires to sell a firearm to a prohibited person. If such violation is the proximate cause of harm, then liability arises from a third party's misuse of a gun.
